You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Influencia de las actividades en la calidad de vida de los ancianos: revisión sistemática
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1413-81232018241.05452017 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abigail Gómez-Morales, Jessica Maria Arouca de Miranda, Aline Maino Pergola-Marconato, Thalyta Cristina Mansano-Schlosser, Felismina Rosa Parreira Mendes, Gilson de Vasconcelos Torres |
| Abstract |
The scope of this study was to identify which activities or interventions cause changes in the quality of life of the elderly. It involved a systematic review of the literature in the Scopus, ISI Web of Science, Scielo, Lilacs, BDenf and PubMed databases. The key word for the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) used was "quality of life," in combination with the terms of greatest interest: "elderly, motor activity, education." The research was conducted between July and August 2015 and included original works published between 2010 and 2015 in English, Portuguese and Spanish. The Cochrane strategy was also adopted for the preparation of the review. Twenty-seven articles were studied that compared the quality of life of the elderly before and after performing a physical, educational or mixed-type intervention. The main result obtained was that the general health, social function, physical role and satisfaction with life are the most influenced domains, whereby group physical activities are practiced the most. The conclusion drawn is that when carrying out activities of any kind, preferably adapted for age, there are changes in the quality of life of the elderly in a general manner, notably with an improvement in functional, mental and social aspects. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 25 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2019.
All research outputs
#6,600,606
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#355
of 2,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,734
of 446,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#12
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,037 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.